Plexiglass for storing glove boxes
Hi, I have a question about boxes for storing gloves that are in product-contact areas and areas where product-contact surfaces are exposed.
We want to use plexiglass for storing them because the fabrication should be straightforward. However, we are concerned about the potential for breaking, as plexiglass tends to break at times. Stainless-steel fabrication for boxes for gloves would likely be quite expensive, our Production Manager says. Glove boxes, once opened, need to be in covered containers, per SQF and 21 CFR Part 111 in the United States. What is the best route for this dilemma?
We have SQF and NSF GMP certifications and are under Part 111 and Part 117.
Thank you,
Matthew
That's a hot take from the production manager... Ask him for the specific language, because I'm not aware of it.
I'd absolutely concede that there's a requirement to keep the gloves clean and free from contamination, so unless you're transmitting dust or water spray onto the walls where gloves are kept, there's no actual risk to them sitting in the box openly. (And if you do have dust/spray issues, those need to be root caused and evaluated for remedies because of 1,000 other concerns I'd have...)
Last one of my plants that I was in kept gloves on a wall in wire racking meant to hold the boxes of various sizes. I like the wire racking because it can be easily cleaned when they wash down the walls. Using an enclosed box of plexi or stainless would create places for microorganisms to hide between sanitations. If you do come up with a plexiglass solution, plexiglass isn't a shatterable plastic and is low risk for a production environment. It'll need to be inspected and replaced when cracked, but plexi doesn't shatter into the shards that require registration on a glass and brittle plastic register.
I usually see the items below or some variation. The plexiglass ones do break from time to time.
Attached Files
We opted to fabricate stainless versions of the boxed glove dispensers (like the left image from kingstudruler1, mostly horizontal orientation) . The plastic ones would get broken and replaced, over the long term stainless are less expensive and require less special/delicate maintenance.
I usually see the items below or some variation. The plexiglass ones do break from time to time.
Thanks! The Hubert one isn't covering the gloves, so it would not be compliant for our operations. I've seen ones like that in doctor's offices, so it might be good enough for them (odd to think that though, considering someone with an infectious illness like COVID could easily cough and contaminate them).
The Bowman one is about the minimum standard for us, but I would prefer that we switch to stainless-steel.
Stainless steel is obviously the better choice.
You could use Lexan, which is sort of like Plexiglass, but much more resistant to cracking/shattering.
Marshall
Flu does not transmit via cough. Must be injected.
The cardboard dispenser box is a cover and not once have we had an issue with an auditor.
Thanks! The Hubert one isn't covering the gloves, so it would not be compliant for our operations. I've seen ones like that in doctor's offices, so it might be good enough for them (odd to think that though, considering someone with an infectious illness like COVID could easily cough and contaminate them).
The Bowman one is about the minimum standard for us, but I would prefer that we switch to stainless-steel.
Disposable exam type gloves are not sterile. They really should be sanitized after being put on. There are articles suggesting they can contain pathogens right out of the box. I think the spirit of the clause is that the gloves are protected from chemical spray, allergen dust, etc. Like Glenn stated, its not something that is usually scrutinized. So many times no cover added at all or other forms of limited protection "slides". What you really don't want is an old damaged, abused , visibly dirty box of crusty gloves laying around.
Disposable exam type gloves are not sterile. They really should be sanitized after being put on. There are articles suggesting they can contain pathogens right out of the box. I think the spirit of the clause is that the gloves are protected from chemical spray, allergen dust, etc. Like Glenn stated, its not something that is usually scrutinized. So many times no cover added at all or other forms of limited protection "slides". What you really don't want is an old damaged, abused , visibly dirty box of crusty gloves laying around.
We don't use exam-type gloves. We have a powder-free glove that "Complies with FDA 21 CFR 170-199 for use with food."
We don't use exam-type gloves. We have a powder-free glove that "Complies with FDA 21 CFR 170-199 for use with food."
If they are not individually packaged and market sterile, they are not sterile. (packaged in a box). I don't buy into what the guy in the attached article is selling, but he / they did the work to show the possible risks.
If they are not individually packaged and market sterile, they are not sterile. (packaged in a box). I don't buy into what the guy in the attached article is selling, but he / they did the work to show the possible risks.
Other than Eagle Protect, who sells their own line of gloves, is anyone independently confirming this by testing?
Other than Eagle Protect, who sells their own line of gloves, is anyone independently confirming this by testing?
They're typically packaged in non-airtight cardboard boxes, my expectations aren't terribly high.